http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,738196,00.html look again at the bottom of the page......on the morning of 9/11 daddy bush that is dubyas dad was at a meeting of the carlyle group with shafiq bin laden....a bin laden and bush at a meeting on 9/11.....weird?.....nah dont be a conspiracy nut
watch for the squibs used in demolition
Leo I cant wait till you join us....I know its just a matter of time......muhahaha.......ninja
Once again you're busted for inaccurate claims (nice one Leolalia). At what point do you get bored with being wrong and start doing some better research?
Now, if you want a proper discussion about the build-up to 911 and the arguably suspicious inter-relationships between various people, I think a new thread is a good idea.
First of all this one is so full of refuted conspiracist bullshit you could use it on your roses. Putting what might be valid or interesting claims alongside the rot in this thread won't be doing the new claims any favours.
Second, doing what you are doing now just makes it look like you are changing the subject and flinging every bit of 911 minutiae you can come up with at the screen rather than admit all claims you've made regarding demolition have been shown to be junk.
>Once again you're busted for inaccurate claims (nice one Leolalia).
He starts counting far too soon :-) What a joke !
(Read the comments below the video.)
>At what point do you get bored...
Right now I guess.(Skeptics clutching at straws...)
You "win" Abaddon,
the playground is all yours ...
You say too soon so you can cling to claims of 'freefall', although you know you can't explain how the explosives got there, you know that firemen reported increasing signs of strutural instability, you can see the collapse was asymetrical. Those three facts alone would make a reasonable person conclude that if video evidence is inconclusive then there is little chance of it being an explosion because of those thre simple facts.
I looked below the video (nice and vauge) and saw a link to a fireman saying it was bound to collapse due to its structural integrity being gone; just another peice of evidenec you;ll ignore because it doesn;t fit your desired conclusion.
Don't get bent out of shape because you have beliefs that don't hold up to examiniation.
I know believing in a conspiracy involving the demoltion of the WTC is meant to make you cool, intellectual and edgey, not a self-made object of fun who shows themselves up by poor research, and the reaction being different to that you expect must be disoriontating. I think that's why you leave 'the playground'; you know you are wrong (you certainly can't even prove hat you believe is possible) but just can't let go and your inability to prove something bugs you, although you'd never admit it.
Why is it so neccesary to believe that Bush or people other than the terrorists were directly responsible for the attacks (i.e. didn't just let it happen/be incompetent) when you can't prove this?
We both probably think Bush is a corrupt clown who engineered an invasion using pretexts such as 911. You have to add to that invisable fairies planting invisible explosives in buildings (how else did it happen, eh?) that we know collapsed due to impact/debris damage and fire and even when you can see a video of a fireman saying 'it's gonna fall down it's lost structural integrity' or words to that effect you ignore it.
I don't get it....